Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2012 at 10:10 am
It will be interesting to track the City's involvement with this agreement. The City itself demonstrates no understanding of "technology", and actually has few people on its staff that evidence much public knowledge of what "technology" is all about. Same is true for "economics"--since the City simply spends other people's money, with little evidenced understanding of how business works. Certainly the often-maligned "Palo Alto Process" demonstrates that the City is actually more anti-business than not.
So--what possibly could the City of Palo Alto have that any other City might be interested in?
Wonder if the Mayor ended the negotiations with a few games of ping-pong?
Posted by Kenneth, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm
>The "intention agreement" between Palo Alto and Yangpu commits the cities "to explore mutual economic interactions to, among other things, enhance the economic health and betterment" of the two communities and "keep each other informed on important economic and civic issues."
Does anyone have any idea what that means? Is it about human rights issues in China?; manufacturing jobs in Palo Alto?; H1 visas?; Chinese currency rates?; Palo Alto ability/inability to compete? Chinese government investment in Palo Alto assets/real estate/schools?
Posted by Jan H., a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm Jan H. is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The government of China has demonstrated for decades that it is dishonest, cruel, cares nothing for human rights, and is corrupt as hell. Chinese businesses have demonstrated that they care only about getting rich quick, not product quality or safety, nor employee safety or quality of life. Many people, especially concerned parents, in Palo Alto actively boycott Chinese products, especially children's products....and that is pretty hard to do, considering everything is made there, and the low prices are quite lucrative.
So why is a supposedly reputable community like Palo Alto doing business with China? Most of western Europe has given China and their products the heave-ho. On my latest trip to Europe, I saw only European clothing, cars, toys, and other products. It was actually nearly impossible to find Asian products of any kind in the Netherlands or Belgium (kudos!).
If you want ultra-cheap products, as least buy from Vietnam, whom we owe a debt to, or Thailand, or India. The prices are even lower than their Chinese counterparts, and of far higher quality.
Doing business with China is a slap in the face to those of us who choose to boycott them and their corrupt government, their unethical businesses, and their monstrous abuses.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2012 at 3:18 pm
I agree with Jan, the whole implementation of globalization only to change political and social demographics to turn the social justice clock back in American, with unions, classes, social programs, etc has been an utter disaster for America. We could have gotten along just fine without junk Chinese products and economic corruption.
I do disagree though the VietNam or Thailand are good alternatives. A piece the other day on Thailand shrimp which makes up the majority of US imports shows Thailand using human trafficked slave labor from Burma to bypass regulations of the Thailand government ending with injury and misery to those illegal workers. But we do the same thing here.
Globalization would have worked a lot better and slower if there had been better regulation and human rights laws from the get go.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2012 at 8:52 pm
> But I saved a quarter on a tee shirt the other day. That's worth the destruction of the middle class, isn't it?
The is exactly the point, when we began importing cheap products made with cheap labor there was virtually no savings. The profits ballooned but not the savings for consumers, yet another way we consumers were "taxed" privately to create this radical regime of privatization.